Literally explained how the two things I said make sense together and he banned me for "not manning up to lying"

...Ironically in doing so, he did not man up about his falsehood, which is that I said contradictory things.

Their Rule 4:

No bigotry, sexism, racism, antisemitism, islamophobia, dehumanization of minorities, or glorification of National Socialism. We follow German law; don’t question the statehood of Israel.

Europe@feddit.org removed my comment for de-tangling the conflation of antisemitism and anti-zionism. A dangerous conflation that is genuinely antisemitic and fuels antisemitic hate as it conflates the actions of Israel and Zionism to all Jewish people and Judaism.

This prioritization of the German definition, the adopted IHRA definition, is promoting antisemtitism and is diametrically opposed to the 'No antisemitism' aspect of the rule. The definition has been condemned by the writer of the definition, a multitude of human rights organizations including Human Rights Watch (HRW), American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), B’Tselem, Peace Now, and Palestinian Centre for Human Rights (PCHR), and over 120 leading scholars of anti-semitism.

Germany Is Trying to Combat Antisemitism. Experts Warn a New Resolution May Do the Opposite

Fifteen Israeli nongovernmental organizations, including the Association for Civil Rights in Israel, B'Tselem and Peace Now, issued an open letter in September stating their concern that the resolution, especially the IHRA definition, could be weaponized to "silence public dissent."

This could also affect Jewish voices speaking out for Palestinian rights and opposing the occupation, they added. "Paradoxically, the resolution may therefore undermine, not protect, the diversity of Jewish life in Germany," the letter argued.

• https://archive.is/iyARK

Rights groups urge UN not to adopt IHRA anti-Semitism definition

"The IHRA definition has often been used to wrongly label criticism of Israel as antisemitic, and thus chill and sometimes suppress, non-violent protest, activism and speech critical of Israel and/or Zionism, including in the US and Europe,” the letter said.

US-based Human Rights Watch (HRW), American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), Israeli rights group B’Tselem, and the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights (PCHR) were among the signatories

The letter is the latest attempt by human rights advocates to urge the UN not to adopt the IHRA definition. In November, more than 120 scholars called on the world body to reject the definition, due to its “divisive and polarising” effect.

• https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/11/3/128-scholars-ask-un-not-to-adopt-ihra-definition-of-anti-semitism

128 scholars ask UN not to adopt IHRA definition of anti-Semitism

In a statement published on Thursday, the 128 scholars, who include leading Jewish academics at Israeli, European, United Kingdom and United States universities, said the definition has been “hijacked” to protect the Israeli government from international criticism

• https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/11/3/128-scholars-ask-un-not-to-adopt-ihra-definition-of-anti-semitism

Why the man who drafted the IHRA definition condemns its use

The drafter of what later became popularly known as the EUMC or IHRA definition of antisemitism,including its associated examples, was the U.S. attorney Kenneth S. Stern. However, in written evidence submitted to the US Congress last year, Stern charged that his original definition had been used for an entirely different purpose to that for which it had been designed. According to Stern it had originally been designed as a ”working definition” for the purpose of trying to standardise data collection about the incidence of antisemitic hate crime in different countries. It had never been intended that it be used as legal or regulatory device to curb academic or political free speech. Yet that is how it has now come to be used. In the same document Stern specifically condemns as inappropriate the use of the definition for such purposes, mentioning in particular the curbing of free speech in UK universities, and referencing Manchester and Bristol universities as examples. Here is what he writes:

The EUMC “working definition” was recently adopted in the United Kingdom, and applied to campus. An “Israel Apartheid Week” event was cancelled as violating the definition. A Holocaust survivor was required to change the title of a campus talk, and the university [Manchester] mandated it be recorded, after an Israeli diplomat [ambassador Regev] complained that the title violated the definition.[See here]. Perhaps most egregious, an off-campus group citing the definition called on a university to conduct an inquiry of a professor (who received her PhD from Columbia) for antisemitism, based on an article she had written years before. The university [Bristol] then conducted the inquiry. And while it ultimately found no basis to discipline the professor, the exercise itself was chilling and McCarthy-like. [square brackets added – GW]

• https://www.jewishvoiceforlabour.org.uk/article/why-the-man-who-drafted-the-ihra-definition-condemns-its-use/

[the subreddit, not lemmy, btw]
the words were not the n-word… see below….

racial slurs here

“coon” and “koongaroo”

if it wasn’t written by people claiming to be black, it would be indistinguishable from standard racism….
my money is on, fake as fuck and modded by actual white racists.
anyways, permanent ban, no explanation, no response to questions about the ban.
i had my doubts before, but now i’m sure.

I honestly can't tell if this one is just lemmy.world's moderation being shit as usual, or if the fact that the stories getting removed are Russian is actually relevant.

Here are two stories of mine that have been removed from !nottheonion@lemmy.world for being "not onion-y":

• Trump says Russia has shown willingness for peace by not taking over all of Ukraine, calls it 'pretty big concession'
• Moscow hit by massive drone raid for second night ahead of Putin’s Victory Day parade

Stories that are fine, on the other hand?

• "Can ChatGPT experience joy or suffering? Does Gemini deserve human rights?" our tech columnist asks. "Many A.I. experts I know would say no, not yet, not even close. But I was intrigued."
• 'Trump 2028' apparel on sale at the Trump Organization's online store
• Trump tariffs: US president says foreign movies to be hit with 100% levies

I sort of suspect that what's going on here is a combination of genuine stupidity on the part of the users (having trouble making the leap between "Victory Day" and "Moscow hit by massive drone raid"), plus passivity on the part of the mods (one possibility is that it got reported because of salty pro-Russian people, which the objectively not-oniony stories did not, and the mod just blindly obeys whatever reports say).

Regardless. Moderation on lemmy.world is a pile.

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/29035971

Posting here for preservation's sake

Image in removed comment was the attached Palpatine image. Curious to see if the same admin mod would remove these screenshots if I crosspost them to !yepowertrippinbastards@lemmy.dbzer0.com , which they also admin and mod. Would I get a fair trial there or will my dissenting and others’ be silenced?

You can’t say you’re against disinfo if you’re knowing and intentionally promulgating it and abetting its usage. They also didn’t even remove the Reddit watermark.

This is why I don’t assign identities unto myself, because you criticize one action done wrong by leaders of an ideology or movement and bam! you’re shut out of it completely. They’ve lost the aid of an ally and progress is impeded by being shorted a participant trying to correct the course.

CONTEXT: in r/autism there is a rule that prohibits autismspeaks propaganda to be shared. That's because autismspeaks is a literal eugenics organization that only cares to eradicate autistic people and find a "cure" to autism (which is an anti-scientific take as you can't cure autism and it's been known for a long time to be just a different kind of brain structure)

ok now that we got that out of the way here's the story:

I had a little identity crisis about my diagnosis (lvl 1 autism) and vented about it expressing my anxiety on the topic, and then a user replied inferring that i was self-diagnosed and sent some articles showing the raads-r (the test i took with my specialized psychologist) not being accurate: one of these studies was funded by autismspeaks (which is not allowed by the rules of the same server) so I told the mods about it. These are the logs

So then seeing i was going nowhere I posted my account of the story, and got my post taken down by mods, posted the logs, and they took it down. I don't have logs of my further conversations with the mods, but in one message they said "if we let propaganda on, we're in the wrong, if we suppress discussion we are in the wrong" not even acknowledging the gravity of the situation. Then i made this post calling out the mods for not doing their job, it got taken down, posted a screenshot of it again, took that down and banned me.

they took down my post under the guise of "continuing arguments that has been resolved" which was not at all resolved bc the link to the autismspeaks funded paper was still there and they didn't take action towards the user who posted that. They only did that bc my posts made them look bad, as letting a eugenics organization against autistic people have their propaganda posted on a half a million users subreddit from all over the world is something reprehensible in an autism community which is supposed to be a welcoming space for autistic people. To reddit mods it's always about the powertrip and even in a community that should be welcoming to autistic people they are not willing to take a stance and make people abide by the rules.

I know, lemmy.ml is kind of cheating. I just thought this was a little interesting.

Also, almost all of the upvotes for my comment came from lemmy.ml. I think as time goes on, the narrative is getting punctured despite these guys' best efforts.

Post for context: https://lemmy.sdf.org/post/32833874/19336416

That community has apparently had similar bans in the past, and neither the community nor the server mention their rules anywhere I can find. I also messaged the mod to ask for a link to the rules, their reply was "You need to complete your sentences otherwise you’re going to get a ban."

Not sure if the mod just didn't like the content of my comment and made up a nonpolitical reason, or if their modding is really that arbitrary.

So I posted to !nottheonion@lemmy.world:

Trump says Russia has shown willingness for peace by not taking over all of Ukraine, calls it 'pretty big concession'

Seems like a pretty good fit. It was the number 2 post for the day.

However, it was removed for being "Not Onion-y". What the fuck?

For one, yes, it is onion-y. For two, looking over the posts that are up there now, stuff that is "not onion-y" is more or less the majority of what's in the posts. The new number two story which replaced the one of mine that was removed was “Can ChatGPT experience joy or suffering? Does Gemini deserve human rights?” our tech columnist asks. “Many A.I. experts I know would say no, not yet, not even close. But I was intrigued.”, for example.

I wouldn't really care about the unreasonable removal of my article. Sometimes people just do bad moderation. Except:

1. Someone had come into the comments under my "not onion-y" post to do an unusually incompetent attempt at claiming the Ukraine war was all NATO's fault, and was getting unanimously roasted for it. Almost all of the comments were just laughing at this one guy, reiterating that Russia is in fact at fault in the war, and talking about the problem of Russian propaganda on Lemmy.
2. I have noticed before that almost every single one of the really bafflingly bad lemmy.world moderation decisions is in some way or other in service of propaganda.

Make of all of that what you will.

Edit: Made more concise

There's a post about it.

That post explicitly says it's not a place for debate or participation from users of other instances.

I'd like to respect that but I think events like this need debate and discussion because it helps to develop and evolve the culture of lemmy and the fediverse in general.

The post says:

This post is "FYI only" for blahaj lemmy members. It is not a debate, and is not intended for non blahaj lemmy users to weigh in and offer opinions.

I recently received reports of a feddit.uk user espousing transphobia. Specifically, this was a feddit.uk user refusing to use the word cis, repeating the "adult human female" dog whistle, and claiming that trans women are not women. I approached a member of the feddit.uk admin team and raised my concerns and sought clarification of their stance on posts like this, where the transphobia is mostly dogwhistles, and "civil disagreement" on the validity of trans folk.

I was told by the feddit.uk admin that their preferred response is this kind of transphobia is to "sort it out through discussion and voting". However, the comments in question are currently more upvoted than downvoted, and little "sorting out" has occurred. The posts remain in place.

At this point, the admin stopped responding to my messages despite being active elsewhere on lemmy. When it became clear they were ignoring my messages and had no intention of removing the posts in question, I made the decision to defederate the instance.

I know some folk agree with the feddit.uk admins approach of pushback through discussion and voting, but this instance is not designed to be that kind of space. Blahaj lemmy is meant to be a place where we can avoid the rampant transphobia universally visible on nearly every other social media platform, and where we can exist without needing to debate our right to do so.

DISCLAIMER: this is not my content that was removed, I just came across it in the modlog and found it to be absurd. If it’s not allowed, I totally understand.

Reason removed was because it’s unrelated.

Unrelated…..

The guy was illegally deported without due process. And yet for some reason, suggesting so is somehow “unrelated” to a meme that is trying to say that because he is affiliated (no charges were ever filed against him for gang-related activity) with a gang, he is by default, guilty.

What’s ironic, is that the entire point of the meme is that the bullshit about him being in MS-13 is unrelated to the fact that people want accountability for this administration illegally deporting a man without due process.

This mod has definitely chosen the correct name.

And even taken into consideration that the instance is essentially a troll haven for wayward 4Chan refugees, they should still have to adhere to the rules of common sense.

before i made an account, i reached out to the chief admin of lemmy.dbzer0.com

i was recently banned during a discussion on the validity of a claim regarding the consensus about the safety of a vegan diet:

and, if you bother to go find that discussion, you'll find that, in fact, my interlocutor did become incivil. i did report that. and somehow, my discussion and the subsequent report were the basis of a ban.

it was less than 2 hours. it's almost not worth discussing.

but given my pre-application discussion, i felt strongly that my conduct is within the bounds of the acceptable use of the instance. so if my conduct is not within the acceptable use, that means i basically cant use my account(s) as i planned and under the terms which i agreed.

db0 has said he doesn't want to be the benevolent dictator for life, and has specifically both recused himself from ruling on my conduct and encouraged me to post here and in !div0_governance@lemmy.dbzer0.com (though i'm still holding off on that for now).

so, did i deserve it? power tripping bastard? what do you think?

I thought this silly. Banned for violating rule 1 (sexism, descrimination, etc). Literally laughing irl right now since my post was specifically antidiscrimination.

no idea lol

I thought FUD was a cryptobro term.

So I stopped using a community do to a post seemingly being removed. Feedback on things is not great for what im working from now and im not good with using the modlog link areas and such. Now I had someone relate to me to post on this about that but im like. Nah seems like a drama thing. Thing is I have got 404's what I assume is removed links and they seem like relatively legit posts. One was from stamets saying why he is leaving on casual conversation and I know that user is pretty legit so it seems like his and the others I have seen is based on mods not liking the content. So im writing here just to find out if other folks are seeing this. I mean we are the federation so can just move on to some other place. I may just now block communities that have a bs removal as I don't want to associate with whoever is doing the bs mods. What do people think?

Adding some as I think I have issues getting to the point. My end questions are:

If people have seen heavier handed mod activity in like lets say the past month?

What people do about it?

The post in question, if interested:

Also, I don't know how to see which mod/admin banned me, so if you know how to in the modlog, definitely let me know.

Banned for 7 days, so I'm not super mad or anything - I just thought it was funny.

Honestly I don't blame them - I'd be embarrassed about people finding out my community was on .ml too.

I made a post about the Europeans who are being deported from Germany for being anti-genocide. https://lemmy.ml/post/28407953

A user repeated the now many times debunked lie that these victims facing deportation were "violent racist rioters". Blatant German propaganda, made up to smear opposition to the genocide in Palestine. Which Germany supplies 30% of the weapons for.

After calling them, and a few other users out for repeating the same lie, the moderators banned me.

Deleted

Mod Carrotcypher links to their own personal blog and then pins their own post.

Opsec101's homepage, made by Carrotcypher:

And here's a look at rule 3!

Call me picky, but I think the moderators should follow the rules they write and enforce.

https://lemmy.ml/post/28111691/17749466

This is actually insane. Another user was criticizing the New Deal era and brought up a bunch of points, I commented refuting a bunch of their points but describing two of of them, Japanese Internment and the Red Scare, simply as "legitimate criticism."

@Decoy321@lemmy.world responded "No they’re not. Those two things were caused by far greater international factors. Like, you know, the 2nd World War."

I cited a commission that found that internment was not caused by a legitimate threat posed by the Japanese but was rather caused by racism and hysteria, and that even Reagan agreed with that conclusion and signed a bill paying reparations to the victims.

Well then the mod responded that I was jumping to "inflammatory conclusions" and "personal attacks" because I assumed that when they said that criticism of internment is not legitimate it meant that they were defending internment. They continued to refuse to explain how else I was possibly supposed to interpret such a claim. I still have no idea. Apparently their stance is, "It's not legitimate to criticize the thing I oppose." If anyone can make sense of that, please enlighten me.

Since they refused to explain, I took a guess that maybe the misunderstanding was that they were interpreting "legitimate criticism" as "damning criticism," like that because a bad thing happened during that era, nothing good came of it at all. I made it clear that this was speculation and that any criticism of interpreting it that way only applied if that's what was happening.

The mod responded by permabanning me, removing all of my comments so they don't show in the modlog, and adding this:

Edit: the other commenter essentially proved that they were just baiting people into inflammatory discussion. They kept resorting to personal attacks and flip-flopped on their position solely to continue arguing. This behavior is not tolerated here. Please report such trolls in the future.

At literally no point did I "flip-flop" my position of "internment was bad, actually." Nor did I "bait" them, unless "criticizing internment is legitimate," is somehow "baiting" someone into saying "no it isn't." By far the most "inflammatory" thing that was said was when they said that criticism of internment was "not legitimate." The "personal attacks" I made were stating the fact that the position they had expressed was to the right of Reagan on the issue, and also making a quip about a .world mod defending the Red scare and Joseph McCarthy.

This seems to be a case of a clear case of PTB, the mod apparently misspoke but because they're a mod they can just ban people for calling them out instead of owning up to it.

Edit: My comments are still visible on kbin.earth (thank you @Skua@kbin.earth) so I can provide screenshots:

:::spoiler screenshots

So I'm not 100% sure this is the right sub for this but I couldn't really find another sort of mod abuse sub that had actual users. I recognize that I am most certainly an asshole in this situation, but I got banned Fedibridge@lemmy.dbzer0.com for a misogynistic comment I left on a completely different sub.

imogen_underscore in that same thread made multiple death threats against me and has only received a 7 day ban. So I want to be clear here that in their eyes a misogynistic comment left on an entirely different sub is WORSE than death threats left in your own sub?

Case 1

Original post

Moderator carrotcypher says "removed for paywall." When asked about which rule this breaks, receives no response. The post is then locked.

Case 2

Original post

Same as the first, except this time there is no paywall - the link is to a freely accessible advocate.com page.

It is censored with no explanation.

Case 3

Original post

Same as Case 2, moderators censor the post and leave no explanation.

Case 4

Original post

This one is finally given a removal reason: a rule that does not exist in the sidebar, and seems to have nothing to do with the post ("Your post has been removed for being too specific to a company or single product.")

But in a censored comment, the OP of the post says they received a different removal reason:

This time, other people notice the censorship and the nonsensical nature of the official removal reason.

Since this removal, there has been no further post of this news in r/privacy. Sources tell me the moderators refuse to explain their decision.